Contempt of Court: Juror Misconduct and Internet Publication

Lord Faulks: I wish to make the following Statement to the House announcing the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report “Contempt of Court: Juror Misconduct and Internet Publication”, which was published on 19 December 2013.
	The Government broadly accepts the Law Commission’s recommendations concerning juror misconduct and has introduced provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill that would implement recommendations to create new offences and provide powers for judges to require jurors to surrender electronic communications devices. The Government also accepts that the Law Commission’s recommendations concerning strict liability contempt represent a balanced and measured proposal and two clauses were included in the Bill at introduction to implement the measure. However, as announced in the former Attorney-General’s Written Statement of 30 June to the House, the Government has decided not to pursue the measure and has introduced amendments to omit the clauses from the Bill.
	The Government does not intend to take forward the recommendations concerning a specific defence for disclosure of juror deliberations to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or an exception to the disclosure offence allowing approved academic research. Decisions on whether to accept the recommendations concerning juror information and education will be deferred until after enactment of the Bill so that they can be considered alongside implementation of measures in the Bill.

Disclosure and Barring Service

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: In response given to two Parliamentary Questions from the right honourable Member for Chesham and Amersham, provided by my right honourable friend the Minister for Security and Immigration on 25 March 2013, incorrect information was provided due to difficulties with the extraction and provision of statistical information by the Disclosure and Barring Service. The original questions and answers were:
	Question: Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were placed on the (a) children’s and (b) adults’ barred list between 1 January and 31 December 2012 for reasons of (i) sexual offences, (ii) physical abuse, (iii) psychological or emotional abuse and (iv) neglect; and how many referrals in each category were from regulated activities as defined by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
	Answer: James Brokenshire [holding answer 25 March 2013]: The total number of individuals placed on one or both of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) barred lists between 1 January and 31 December 2012 was 5,675. Of these, 5,358 were placed on the children’s list and 5,107 were placed on the adults list. Discretionary cases are categorised by type of harm. The following table provides the information that is held and available for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012. Data for autobar cases cannot be provided because they are not categorised in this way.
	
		
			 Barred list 
			 Harm type Adults Children’s Total 
			 Financial 266 2 268 
			 Sexual 33 76 109 
			 Physical 19 7 26 
			 Neglect 18 7 25 
			 Verbal 7 0 7 
			 Emotional 1 0 1 
			 Other 5 3 8 
			 Total 349 95 444 
		
	
	and
	Question: Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were placed on (a) either the children’s and the adults’ barred list and (b) the discretionary barred list between 1 January and 31 December 2012.
	Answer: James Brokenshire [holding answer 25 March 2013]: The total number of individuals placed on one or both of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) barred lists between 1 January and 31 December 2012 was 5,675. Of these, 4,790 were placed on both lists.
	There is not a separate discretionary barred list.
	The correct information is as follows:
	Answer 1: The total number of individuals placed in one or both of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) barred lists between 01 January and 31 December 2012 are as follows:
	
		
			 Year Added to Children’s List Added to Adults’ List Barred on both lists 
			 2012 5852 5683 5822 
		
	
	Information relating to the reasons and the harm type under which each person was barred, and a breakdown of those reasons/harm types by regulated activity cannot be provided without examination of individual case files which would incur disproportionate cost.
	The table that was provided in the original response, containing a breakdown of ‘harm type’ has been removed as the data cannot be reconciled to the numbers barred. This has arisen because we became aware of a systems issue which meant some baseline data was extracted and summarised incorrectly.
	and
	Answer 2: The total number of individuals placed in one or both of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) barred lists between 01 January and 31 December 2012 are as follows:
	
		
			 Year Added to Children’s List Added to Adults’ List Barred on both lists 
			 2012 5852 5683 5822 
		
	
	NB This table includes people barred as a result of autobar, discretionary, determination and enhanced check cases. Those individuals counted in the “Barred on both lists” column are also counted in the column for each respective list. There is not a separate Discretionary Barred List.
	The following table illustrates the number of people that have been barred under a discretionary bar from working with (a) children and (b) adults in 2012.
	
		
			 Calendar Year Discretionary Barred Children’s List Discretionary Barred Adults’ List 
			 2012 157 391

EU: Criminal Proceedings

Lord Faulks: The Government on 18 March 2014 decided not to opt in to any of the three EU criminal procedural rights proposals listed above which were all published by the European Commission (“the Commission”) at the same time. These decisions were debated in the other place on 18 March 2014. Explanatory Memoranda for each proposal have previously been deposited in Parliament.
	The Commission produced a legislative proposal on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings which aims to establish common rules in matters it has identified as relevant to “the presumption of innocence”. It is proposed under Article 82(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Accordingly, the UK’s Title V opt-in applies.
	The Commission’s accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (EM) explains that it considers that the issue of the presumption of innocence may have a bearing on the mutual trust between Member States and therefore on the effective application of mutual recognition measures. However, the Government does not believe that the case has been at all made to demonstrate the need for EU action in this area. Indeed the Commission’s own EM suggests that there is limited evidence to suggest there is a demonstrable problem with the current arrangements. This House, on the recommendation of the European Scrutiny Committee, had expressed similar misgiving about the need for the proposed legislative instrument and issued a Reasoned Opinion to the Commission indicating that that it had failed to satisfy the subsidiarity principle.
	The proposal would require some significant changes to UK laws and practice if it were accepted in its current form. For example the very limited circumstances in which adverse inferences can be drawn from a defendants silence or refusal to co-operate would likely have to be changed. Of course the presumption of
	innocence is a long-standing principle of the common law and UK laws that place exceptions upon this principle have been found to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The Government therefore considers the proposal to be unnecessary and unwelcome and has concluded that the UK should not opt in to the proposal. UK will therefore not be bound by the outcome.
	The Commission’s also proposed a Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. This aims to establish common rules regarding the treatment of children suspected or accused of a criminal offence or the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It is proposed under Article 82(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Accordingly, the UK’s Title V opt-in applies.
	The Commission’s EM accompanying this proposal explains that in the Commission’s view a lack of common rules at a European level leads to a lack of mutual trust and recognition across the Union. As children are regarded as vulnerable, it argues, they require elevated and specific safeguards.
	Of course the Government supports the principle that children that become engaged with the law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice systems are vulnerable and need special protection. UK laws and practice reflect this and there is a raft of protective measures in place to help and support these children. For example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) and associated PACE codes set out the rules for the treatment of children accused or suspected of a criminal offence. This framework provides actions to protect children being held by the Police and other judicial authorities. However, the proposed Directive would establish different rules. The Government is not convinced those rules would represent an improvement in the support and protection of young people in the UK from those that already exist here. Some aspects of the proposed rules would require some significant changes to UK arrangements to no obvious benefit. For example, UK laws are nuanced and recognise that children of different ages may require different levels of protection. By establishing the definition of a child at one level the proposal would change that. The laws of the UK also recognise that in certain limited circumstances it is necessary to detain children for a period of time, for example if it is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence or to obtain evidence via questioning The proposal would seem to seek to alter those arrangements. Further, the proposal suggests some new arrangements which the Government considers to be disproportionate if applied to all cases, for example the requirement to audio-visually record almost all interviews. This is not common practice in the UK; all interviews are audio recorded but there is very little routine use of audio-visual recordings.
	The Government has therefore decided that the UK will not be opting in to this Directive and the UK will not be bound by the outcome. That position can of course be reconsidered at the conclusion of the instrument if there have been changes which address the above concerns.
	The Commission also published a proposal for a Directive on provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European arrest warrant (EAW) proceedings. This aims to establish common rules about access to provisional legal aid for suspected or accused persons in certain circumstances and in relation to or persons subject to an EAW. The Directive is proposed under Article 82(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Accordingly, the UK’s Title V opt-in applies.
	The Commission’s accompanying EM suggests that a lack of common rules at a European level leads at present leads to a deficit of mutual trust and recognition across the Union. It suggests that common minimum standards on provision of criminal legal aid are necessary to improve mutual trust between judicial authorities.
	The Government considers the proposal to be unnecessary and unwelcome. It considers that the UK’s current system for the provision of criminal legal aid is one of which we can be proud. Access to criminal legal aid in the UK is already of a high standard. The right to criminal legal aid is already guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of course UK laws and practice are compliant with that. The UK criminal legal aid regime delivers legal aid to those that need it when they need it. The Government considers that the rules on legal aid are most appropriately determined by Member States themselves rather than at the EU level. The Government has therefore concluded that the UK will not opt in to this proposal and the UK will therefore not be bound by the final Directive.

Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act

Lord Faulks: I am pleased to announce that I have made a commencement order, the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014 (Commencement) Order 2014, bringing the provisions of the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014 into force on 1 October 2014.

Russia and Ukraine: Restrictive Measures

Baroness Warsi: I wish to update the House on the matter of restricted measures applied against Russia, in light of the situation in Ukraine.
	On 25 July, the European Council added 15 more persons and 18 entities responsible for action against Ukraine’s territorial integrity, to the list of those subject to an asset freeze and a visa ban.
	The European Council also widened the designation criteria in the legal basis for restrictive measures to be applied. This paved the way for imposing asset freezes and visa bans on persons and entities that actively support or are benefiting from Russian decision makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of eastern Ukraine.
	Following the conclusions of the special meeting of the European Council of 16 July, the escalation of
	violence in eastern Ukraine, and the killing of almost 300 innocent civilians on board Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the EU agreed to strengthen restrictive measures against Russia.
	On 29 July, the EU agreed a package of significant additional restrictive measures targeting sectoral co-operation and exchanges with the Russian Federation.
	These restrictive measures will:
	limit access to EU primary and secondary capital markets for Russian state-owned financial institutions;
	impose an embargo on trade in arms;
	establish an export ban for dual use goods for military end users; and
	curtail Russian access to certain sensitive technologies that can be used for oil production and exploration.
	The European Council also on 29 July agreed to a ban on European investment in key sectors in Crimea and to add eight further persons, some which could be considered to fall in to the “crony” category as well as three entities to the list of those subject to an asset freeze and a visa ban. This will bring the number of persons currently under EU sanctions in connection with the situation in Ukraine to 95, while the number of entities will rise to 23.
	The 29 July package reinforces the measures already adopted by the EU since March 2014 on the situation in Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Crimea.
	These restrictive measures are a response to the unacceptable Russian behaviour in destabilising another country and are aimed at applying pressure to Russia to change such behaviour. These measures are designed to have a cost for the Russian economy.
	Work on this package within the European Union has been aimed at ensuring that it is fair and balanced, has economic impact shared evenly across the EU, and has more impact on Russia than on the EU itself.
	Any further measures, should these be required, would be proportionate, carefully constructed and designed to keep pressure on the Russian authorities to act to restore and ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
	An Amended Regulation on listing further names of entities and individuals—from the 29 July decisions—and a Council Decision and Council Regulation on the Crimea investment ban will be agreed by written procedure today. A Council Decision and Council Regulation on so-called “Tier 3” sectoral restrictive measures will be agreed by written procedure tomorrow. Restrictions are expected to come into effect on 1 August.
	Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I wish to update the House on
	steps that my Department took to protect taxpayers’ interests and ensure probity in the spending of public money.
	As part of the Coalition Government’s broader programme of decentralisation, Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation was closed in 2012 and its functions transferred to the local council.
	As detailed in the Written Ministerial Statement made by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell) on 8 October 2013, Official Report, col. WS22, during the body’s closure process, it came to Ministers’ attention that correct procedures were not followed by the Corporation resulting in irregular payments being made. A departmental investigation was initiated and this identified spending on items including the purchase of software for personal use by
	a senior executive of the closing body and payment in lieu of notice when this could have been avoided through timely issuing of formal notice periods to staff. A copy of the investigation report was placed in the Library of the House, further to that Written Statement.
	Ministers regarded this as totally unacceptable and the Department supported Thurrock Borough Council in taking legal action to recover funds from the former Chief Executive and Director of Resources to protect taxpayers’ interests. The Council has now reached agreements with both parties that will see a total of £60,710 repaid in relation to irregular payments and a further £6,000 towards the cost of taking legal action.
	I hope this sends out a strong signal about our zero tolerance towards wasting public money.